imported_Ivan Rajic
New member
Setec Astronomy said:
I'm not arguing one way or the other just wanted to mention that I can get M3, M4, M2, M9, M26, M82 M80 and a couple others at local Murray's Auto parts stores as well as few Autozone locations
Ipa 105/205
- Thread starter Greg Nichols
- Start date
I'm not arguing one way or the other just wanted to mention that I can get M3, M4, M2, M9, M26, M82 M80 and a couple others at local Murray's Auto parts stores as well as few Autozone locations
Jason Rose
New member
Greg Nichols said:
New to this forum...hope it's OK I chime in?
If you had defect free results before an IPA wipe down, and you had defects revealed after the IPA wipe...then your logical conclusion is the defects were temporaily masked. An IPA wipe does not generate the kind of micro defect a DA tool will create, nor does any type towel. If you do enough DA polishing, you know what a DA haze looks like. It's unique and unmistakable.
I'll get to filling defects in a minute, but first a comment about the DA haze.
DA haze is a defect produced by a combination of several variables in the DA polishing process. The top coat hardness, tool speed, user downward pressure, liquid formula, number of passes, and pad type...to name a few. If you get a DA haze, it is a rush to judgement to say it is the fault of the polish. The fact is, when you experience a DA haze on a car, you are likely to get a DA haze with a wide variety of liquid/pad combinations. A DA haze says more about the paint than any other variable, although the other variables play a role. You will come across paint that will DA haze no matter what you do, even with the softest pad with a non-abrasive wax. I estimate that 20-30% of the paint you will polish on is susceptible to DA hazing. And if you have already drilled down to your most mellow liquid/pad combination...you need to switch to hand application to finish out defect free. Simple as that.
Filling of defects...the topic has two facets. One has to do with the realities of any product application, and the other has to do with the product itself.
1) I believe on the black limo you experienced filling. I'm not alarmed nor surprised by this. Happens all the time...to you...to me...and to others who polish cars. Many applications of a compound, polish, or wax can result in filling...even if the product was not intended to fill at all. Any product can do it. You can take a polish and apply a drop on the paint of 10 cars, smash each drop down to a flat even layer of polish, and then wait until dry. When you wipe the polish residue off each car...what will you find? You will find 2-3 cars have no difference from the surrounding paint. 3-5 cars will have darkening of color and hiden defects on that spot, and the rest may have significant darkening of color and major hiding of defects. This will happen with a wide variety of products including compounds, polishes, and waxes. Now...you have taken the variable of machine or hand application out of the equation. And the result was filling and not filling...same product, but spread out over 10 different paints. With an IPA wipe down, most of the spots on the 10 cars reverted to their same look as the untreated paint. When you add in the variable of machine application on those same 10 cars...you will also expreience a spread of filling and non-filling results over the 10 cars...same product. Every product, any brand, has the potential for hiding defects. Which is why some kind of IPA or glass cleaner wipe down is recommended on a spot check bases before waxing a car. So why is it that the same product can result in filling on some cars and not on others? It's a combination of variables that will make your head spin.
2) Some products fill because they were designed to do so. All manufacturers of car care products know exactly what ingredients they need to put in a product to get it to hide paint defects. It's actually basic chemistry and not very difficult to create a product intended to hide. Some ingredients can actually be described as durable fillers, and hide defects more robustly than others. As a product developer, detail enthusiast, and long time detailer myself...I don't like any filling properties in a compound or subsequent polish. These are two polishing steps I hope to have "what you see is what you get" results. Waxing can hide defects, I'm OK with that. We, Meguiar's that is, believe that most professional detailers feel the same way. Which is why you will not find the ingredients of M105 or M205 to include intentional fillers.
Here is the honest facts on product development for Meguiar's in the polish category...
- We know a product will not generate the same result consistently on every car, every time.
- So, we build the product to do what we hope it will do on every car, every time.
- Then we do hundreds of global products tests in multiple climates with mulitple users. The most we can possibly accomplish with time and resources.
- With hundreds of test results, we plot them on a graph. It should calculate out to a bell curve that supports 75% or more positive matches to the target performance.
- If it doesn't, the product is rejected and we are back to development work.
I can tell you that our product performance pre-market validation for M105 and M205 were the strongest results we have achieved with any product for many years.
Getting the first bottle sold to detailers is easy. But detailers like yourself will not conitnue to buy a product that does not deliver on it's claims. Our product claims are based on a bell curve however. Which means not all users will accept the performance of the product. And some users will find the product does not perform the same all the time. But this is the reality of polishing products. We didn't create that world, we just live in it.
Our sales of M105 and M205 are beyond our wildest expectations. Which means someone besides me likes the stuff.
Sorry for the long post. I guess the main take away is to think of results in terms of a bell curve and not an experience on one or two cars. And to be mindful of the many other variables impacting your results. Unfortunately, it's not a simple matter of kicking the liquid product to the curb when you have an unexpected or undesireable result.
Sincerely hope this information helps,
Jason
Jason Rose
New member
Greg Nichols said:
New to this forum...hope it's OK I chime in?
If you had defect free results before an IPA wipe down, and you had defects revealed after the IPA wipe...then your logical conclusion is the defects were temporaily masked. An IPA wipe does not generate the kind of micro defect a DA tool will create, nor does any type towel. If you do enough DA polishing, you know what a DA haze looks like. It's unique and unmistakable.
I'll get to filling defects in a minute, but first a comment about the DA haze.
DA haze is a defect produced by a combination of several variables in the DA polishing process. The top coat hardness, tool speed, user downward pressure, liquid formula, number of passes, and pad type...to name a few. If you get a DA haze, it is a rush to judgement to say it is the fault of the polish. The fact is, when you experience a DA haze on a car, you are likely to get a DA haze with a wide variety of liquid/pad combinations. A DA haze says more about the paint than any other variable, although the other variables play a role. You will come across paint that will DA haze no matter what you do, even with the softest pad with a non-abrasive wax. I estimate that 20-30% of the paint you will polish on is susceptible to DA hazing. And if you have already drilled down to your most mellow liquid/pad combination...you need to switch to hand application to finish out defect free. Simple as that.
Filling of defects...the topic has two facets. One has to do with the realities of any product application, and the other has to do with the product itself.
1) I believe on the black limo you experienced filling. I'm not alarmed nor surprised by this. Happens all the time...to you...to me...and to others who polish cars. Many applications of a compound, polish, or wax can result in filling...even if the product was not intended to fill at all. Any product can do it. You can take a polish and apply a drop on the paint of 10 cars, smash each drop down to a flat even layer of polish, and then wait until dry. When you wipe the polish residue off each car...what will you find? You will find 2-3 cars have no difference from the surrounding paint. 3-5 cars will have darkening of color and hiden defects on that spot, and the rest may have significant darkening of color and major hiding of defects. This will happen with a wide variety of products including compounds, polishes, and waxes. Now...you have taken the variable of machine or hand application out of the equation. And the result was filling and not filling...same product, but spread out over 10 different paints. With an IPA wipe down, most of the spots on the 10 cars reverted to their same look as the untreated paint. When you add in the variable of machine application on those same 10 cars...you will also expreience a spread of filling and non-filling results over the 10 cars...same product. Every product, any brand, has the potential for hiding defects. Which is why some kind of IPA or glass cleaner wipe down is recommended on a spot check bases before waxing a car. So why is it that the same product can result in filling on some cars and not on others? It's a combination of variables that will make your head spin.
2) Some products fill because they were designed to do so. All manufacturers of car care products know exactly what ingredients they need to put in a product to get it to hide paint defects. It's actually basic chemistry and not very difficult to create a product intended to hide. Some ingredients can actually be described as durable fillers, and hide defects more robustly than others. As a product developer, detail enthusiast, and long time detailer myself...I don't like any filling properties in a compound or subsequent polish. These are two polishing steps I hope to have "what you see is what you get" results. Waxing can hide defects, I'm OK with that. We, Meguiar's that is, believe that most professional detailers feel the same way. Which is why you will not find the ingredients of M105 or M205 to include intentional fillers.
Here are the honest facts on product development for Meguiar's in the polish category...
- We know a product will not generate the same result consistently on every car, every time.
- So, we build the product to do what we hope it will do on every car, every time.
- Then we do hundreds of global products tests in multiple climates with mulitple users. The most we can possibly accomplish with time and resources.
- With hundreds of test results, we plot them on a graph. It should calculate out to a bell curve that supports 75% or more positive matches to the target performance.
- If it doesn't, the product is rejected and we are back to development work.
I can tell you that our product performance pre-market validation for M105 and M205 were the strongest results we have achieved with any product for many years.
Getting the first bottle sold to detailers is easy. But detailers like yourself will not conitnue to buy a product that does not deliver on it's claims. Our product claims are based on a bell curve however. Which means not all users will accept the performance of the product. And some users will find the product does not perform the same all the time. But this is the reality of polishing products. We didn't create that world, we just live in it.
Our sales of M105 and M205 are beyond our wildest expectations. Which means someone besides me likes the stuff.
Sorry for the long post. I guess the main take away is to think of results in terms of a bell curve and not an experience on one or two cars. And to be mindful of the many other variables impacting your results. Unfortunately, it's not a simple matter of kicking the liquid product to the curb when you have an unexpected or undesireable result.
Sincerely hope this information helps,
Jason
Kevin Brown
New member
Yay! It posted... TWICE! :spot
I won't speak for Jason here, but we had a discussion related to paint swelling.
I asked if he could give his opinion on the subject of IPA wipe downs.
More specifically, I asked if he preferred to use a glass cleaner that contains alcohol, or if he preferred to use straight alcohol.
Personally, I have always used glass cleaner.
I usually run it on the rich side when I use the bulk stuff (such as the Meguiar's Detailer® Glass Cleaner).
Jason mentioned that alcohol (when used in a strong concentration) would DEFINITELY have a swelling effect on a majority of paint types.
In addition, he opined that using very strong concentrations of IPA is overkill, and may be detrimental to many paint types.
Same goes for other wipe down chemicals (wax & grease removers, naptha, etc.)
In the old days, I used to wash the car thoroughly between every buffing step.
The reason was to remove all the abrasive residue stuck between the panels and sprayed all over the rest of the car.
I used a bottle of diluted car wash to presoak the accumulated goop, then pressure washed the vehicle, washed it with a mitt, and rinsed again (always used deionized water too, so that helped clean things ever further).
Maybe that was the best thing to do after all. :wow:
I won't speak for Jason here, but we had a discussion related to paint swelling.
I asked if he could give his opinion on the subject of IPA wipe downs.
More specifically, I asked if he preferred to use a glass cleaner that contains alcohol, or if he preferred to use straight alcohol.
Personally, I have always used glass cleaner.
I usually run it on the rich side when I use the bulk stuff (such as the Meguiar's Detailer® Glass Cleaner).
Jason mentioned that alcohol (when used in a strong concentration) would DEFINITELY have a swelling effect on a majority of paint types.
In addition, he opined that using very strong concentrations of IPA is overkill, and may be detrimental to many paint types.
Same goes for other wipe down chemicals (wax & grease removers, naptha, etc.)
In the old days, I used to wash the car thoroughly between every buffing step.
The reason was to remove all the abrasive residue stuck between the panels and sprayed all over the rest of the car.
I used a bottle of diluted car wash to presoak the accumulated goop, then pressure washed the vehicle, washed it with a mitt, and rinsed again (always used deionized water too, so that helped clean things ever further).
Maybe that was the best thing to do after all. :wow:
Greg Nichols
New member
Thanks Jason for the posting, that is the kind of info I was looking for.
What is the purpose of kaolin clay in a product then?
Sorry this may detrail the thread........since I started this I guess I can derail?
I worked with 205 again, and I cannot for the life of me get it to work with a ROTARY, it will work okay with a DA. I still saw a "filling effect" this past weekend on a Med/soft Porsche. It looked outstanding until I wiped it down with IPA (91%) then I got some slight swirls back. I ran the DA/black 2.0 on 5 for 4-6 passes with steady pressure, then slightly backed off the pressure for 2 passes. I want to really figure this out, so all your replies help.
the paint swelling issue is something I will have to learn more about. Anyone want to chime in on that issue or shall I start another thread on that? LOL
Cheers,
GREG
What is the purpose of kaolin clay in a product then?
Sorry this may detrail the thread........since I started this I guess I can derail?
I worked with 205 again, and I cannot for the life of me get it to work with a ROTARY, it will work okay with a DA. I still saw a "filling effect" this past weekend on a Med/soft Porsche. It looked outstanding until I wiped it down with IPA (91%) then I got some slight swirls back. I ran the DA/black 2.0 on 5 for 4-6 passes with steady pressure, then slightly backed off the pressure for 2 passes. I want to really figure this out, so all your replies help.
the paint swelling issue is something I will have to learn more about. Anyone want to chime in on that issue or shall I start another thread on that? LOL
Cheers,
GREG
I'm no chemist but I believe Kaolin Clay has cleaning properties. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I think Kaolin Clay is a component of Clay Bars? Not sure why that's in my head, but I remember reading that someplace.
EDIT: I just looked at he MSDS sheet for #105 and it doesn't list Kaolin Clay? I looked at the Meg's clay bars also and they don't list Kaolin Clay either. I did however see that the Zymol Lehm clay has Kaolin clay as a component?
EDIT: I just looked at he MSDS sheet for #105 and it doesn't list Kaolin Clay? I looked at the Meg's clay bars also and they don't list Kaolin Clay either. I did however see that the Zymol Lehm clay has Kaolin clay as a component?
SuperBee364
New member
Jason M said:
Yeah, the MSDS sheets for 105 and 205 do not show kaolin clay in them, but most of the other Meg's abrasive and "pure polish" products do. It's a very common ingredient in most glazes and other products that are intended to fill.
/rantmode
Honestly, though.... it seems that *every* polish out there fills to some degree, kaolin clay or not. It really doesn't matter if it's 'paint swelling", "unintentional filling" kaolin clay, paint expansion/shrinkage, IPA causing it, MF's causing it, or the position of the Sun and Venus. We're all getting waaaay too wrapped around the axle about the whole filling issue. ALL POLISHES fill to a certain degree. Let's just live with that fact, and work with it. It's really not that big of an issue. If, after an IPA wipedown, defects come back, then polish again. rinse. repeat until defects don't come back. For those that would rather not deal with it, great... don't do the IPA wipedown, and keep on truckin'. Whether a polish fills or not will never be the deciding factor of whether or not I use said product. If it was, I wouldn't have a polish left on my shelves; *all* of my favorite polishes fill.
We could all sit here and argue "it fills" "no it doesn't" from now til the end of time, and we'll all still be on exactly the same team we started on.
As David Fermani recently pointed out, this discussion/arguement has been brought up soooo many times over the past few years. And it just doesn't matter. Either do an IPA wipe, or don't. It's really that easy.
Last year's discussion about the whole filling issue resulted in a big rift between some Autopia members and Menzerna. It got pretty ugly. Let's not revisit that battle ground, eh?
Yes... IMO, 105 and 205 both fill. Nothing anybody can say can change what I have witnessed firsthand. And I wouldn't trade either of them for anything.
/end rant
Couldn't agree more Supa. One of my favorite products ever (#9) hides A LOT! It also finishes out awesome on uber soft paints and is a great final polish on perfected surfaces. Am I going to stop using it? Nope!
I do however appriciate that Jason Rose stated they intentionally did not add "fillers" to 105 and 205. It's nice to have products that are based on correction more than hiding.
I do however appriciate that Jason Rose stated they intentionally did not add "fillers" to 105 and 205. It's nice to have products that are based on correction more than hiding.
Bostonsfavson
New member
DinoV said:
I believe this is another issue with no clear cut right answer. FWIW, the *vast* majority of people here use IPA.